Back
2016 Supreme(Del) 702
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J.
RICHA ARYA – Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR - Respondents
CRL.REV.P. 300/2015
Decided On : 09-02-2016
For the Appellant : Ms.Aishwarya Rao, Adv.
For the Respondent:Mr. M.P. Singh, APP. SI Mousam Ghani, PS Mayur Vihar. Mr. Mohit Mathur, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Narinder Sharma, Adv. for R-2
Relief under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act is in addition to any other relief that could be granted by any court of law to the petitioner in any forum.
Headnote:
Domestic Violence - Interim Relief - Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Section 23
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Richa Arya, sought monetary relief under section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which was rejected by the Metropolitan Magistrate and upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge. The petitioner alleged domestic violence and sought various reliefs including interim relief.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the lower courts did not appreciate the scope of powers under the Act and failed to consider the reliefs claimed by the petitioner. It also criticized the delay in deciding the interim application and set aside the lower courts' orders, remanding the case for expedited proceedings.
Issues: The issues revolved around the entitlement to interim relief under the Domestic Violence Act, consideration of the petitioner's claims, and the delay in deciding the interim application.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that relief under Section 12 of the Act is in addition to any other relief that could be granted by any court of law to the petitioner in any forum. It also emphasized the need for expeditious disposal of proceedings.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, the lower courts' orders were set aside, and the case was remanded to the Metropolitan Magistrate for expedited proceedings.
ASHUTOSH KUMAR , J.
Crl.M.A No.17968/2015 Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions. Application is disposed of. CRL.REV.P. 300/2015
1. Richa Arya has questioned the legality of the order dated 15.10.2014 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (Mahila Court-02) East, whereby the prayer made on her behalf for monetary relief, as an interim measure, under section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') was rejected primarily on the ground that she had been granted maintenance pendente lite of Rs.5000/- per month under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in a proceeding for divorce instituted by her husband (respondent no.2) and therefore she was not entitled to the grant of additional maintenance; as also against the appellate judgment and order dated 24.01.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-03 East, Karkardooma Courts, Shahdara, Delhi in Crl. Appeal no. 120/2014, whereby the order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, referred to above, was affirmed and upheld.
2. In order to appreciate the contention of the petitioner, it would be necessary to set out the facts leading to invocation of the provisions of the Act by the petitioner.
3. The petitioner was married to respondent no.2 on 10.02.2010 and within a short span of about 3 months, she was subjected to an additional demand of 8-10 Lakhs as dowry and was harassed for non-payment of the same. In the fourth month of the matrimonial relationship of the petitioner with the respondent no.2, she was beaten up and ousted from her matrimonial home. When she attempted to enter the matrimonial household on 21.08.2010, she was put to a shameful incident when half of her body remained inside the gate of the house and the half remained inside: the gates were deliberately closed by the in-laws while the petitioner was entering the house. The aforesaid incident was published in print and visual media.
4. Forced by such act of cruelty by the abusers including respondent no.2, a complaint was lodged on 26.08.2010 with CAW cell. Relevant would it be to state that the petitioner gave birth to a child namely Krisha @ Mishty on 24.11.2010. So shameless were the matrimonial relatives of the petitioner that she was even roughed up in the CAW cell and the police, per force, had to draw up a Kalandra under section 107/151 Cr.P.C. This was followed by registration of FIR bearing no. 87/2011 instituted under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC in PS Mayur Vihar against respondent no.2 and his other family members. As part of clever strategy, the respondent no.2 filed a petition for divorce in the Family Court at Ghaziabad, U.P. IN the aforesaid petition for divorce, the petitioner preferred an application under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for maintenance pendente lite and was granted maintenance at rate of Rs. 5000/- p.m.
5. The petitioner also filed an application under section 12 of the Act before the learned Magistrate, Karkardooma Courts, for protection, residence, monetary reliefs, custody of child and compensation. She simultaneously moved an application under section 23 of the Act for interim relief.
6. In the aforesaid application, the petitioner asserted that respondent no.2 was a man of substance and was earning at least Rs. 1,20,000/- p.m. from different sources, whereas she did not have any independent source of income and was unable to maintain herself as well as her daughter.
7. The respondent no.2, though, admitted the factum of marriage and birth of the child out of the said wedlock but denied all instances of domestic violence alleged by the petitioner and her assertion of respondent no.2 earning Rs. 1,20,000/- p.m. from various sources. On the contrary, it was averred on behalf of respondent no.2 that the petitioner was a post-graduate/MCA and working in an MNC in Gurgaon, Haryana, which fetched approximately Rs. 15,000/- p.m. to her. It was further contended that the pe
